A Collaborative Approach to Writing
Learning Goals
September 30, 2009
1
A brief overview of Assessment At
Lehman
Assessment Council
 Middle States Recommendations
 Timeline
 Ambassador’s Role In This Process

2
Assessment Council
Membership










Nancy Dubetz (ECCE) nancy.dubetz@lehman.cuny.edu
*Robert Farrell (Lib) robert.farrell@lehman.cuny.edu
Marisol Jimenez (ISSP) marisol.jimenez@lehman.cuny.edu
Carl Mazza (SWK) carl.mazza@lehman.cuny.edu
Vincent Prohaska (Psych)
vincent.prohaska@lehman.cuny.edu
Lynn Rosenberg (SLHS) lynn.rosenberg@lehman.cuny.edu
Robyn Spencer (History) robyn.spencer@lehman.cuny.edu
Minda Tessler (Psych) minda.tessler@lehman.cuny.edu
Janette Tilley (Mus) janette.tilley@lehman.cuny.edu
Esther Wilder (Soc) esther.wilder@lehman.cuny.edu
*Committee Chair
Administrative Advisor – Assessment Coordinator
• Ray Galinski - raymond.galinski@lehman.cuny.edu
3
Committee charge





Develop written strategic plan for campus assessment of
student learning, which will include:
• definitions of key terms for campus assessment practices
• articulation of reporting procedures
• articulation of responsible parties
• recommendations for departmental processes for assessing
learning goals
• recommendations on incentives for faculty participation in
assessment
Develop and promote a culture of assessment on campus
Act in an advisory capacity to Provost [Deans’ Council] for
developing campus assessment goals
Act in an advisory capacity to departments and individual
faculty to facilitate assessment efforts
Work with campus Assessment Coordinator to create crossdepartmental assessment teams and partnerships.
4
Middle States Standards &
Accreditation

Standard 14: Assessment of Student
Learning:
Assessment of student learning
demonstrates that, at graduation, or
other appropriate points, the
institution’s students have
knowledge, skills, and competencies
consistent with institutional and
appropriate higher education goals.
5
Reviewers will be looking for:
how each goal is being assessed (including
tools),
 what assessment results have been collected,
 analysis detailing what those results say
about goals,
 how results are being used for improvement
of student learning,
 evidence that the institution recognizes,
values and supports these efforts, and
 evidence that the process is systematic and
part of the institution’s culture.

6
Timeline
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
• Articulate learning
goals and objectives
for majors and
programs
• Revisiting Assessment
plans
• First assessment cycle
of student learning
goals
Ongoing
assessment
Spring 2010
• Create procedural
outline for assessment
cycle
• May entail alignment of
curriculum to ensure
student learning
opportunities
• Programs begin
assessment if ready
Spring 2011
• Assessment
results reported
• Middle State
report submitted
ASSESSMENT AMBASSADORS





Attend occasional assessment workshops,
conferences and events
Work closely with department chairs and deans
to develop major/program learning goals &
objectives that align with good assessment
practices
Submit major/program level goals & objectives
to the Associate Deans for review
Help coordinate assessment plans for each
major/program in department
Work with assessment coordinator
8
What do we want our students to
learn?
What…
 knowledge,
 skills,
 abilities, and
 habits of mind
…do we expect graduates of our
program to have?
9
Guiding philosophy

“Assessment begins not with creating or implementing tests,
assignments, or other assessment tools but by first deciding on
your goals: what you want your students to learn” (Suskie 2004: 73).

“The identification of intended educational (student learning)
outcomes is a very important first step in the assessment
process. In many cases, it is abbreviated in nature so that ‘we
can get on with assessment.’ To shorten this step seriously
undermines the use of results from the assessment activities. . .”
(Nichols and Nichols 2005: 83).

“…When clearly defined goals are lacking, it is impossible to
evaluate a course or program efficiently. And there is no sound
basis for selecting appropriate materials, content or
instructional methods” (Mager, 1969).
10
ASSESSMENT PYRAMID
MISSION
COLLEGE GOALS
DEPT / PROGRAM GOALS
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
COURSE GOALS
COURSE
OBJECTIVES
11
Workshop Articulating Learning
Goals & Objectives
Goals, Objectives, Outcomes
Goal
- A broad statement of desired outcomes – what we hope students will
know and be able to do as a result of completing the program/course. They
should highlight the primary focus and aim of the program.They are not directly
measurable. Rather, They are evaluated directly or indirectly by measuring
specific objectives related to the goal.
Objective - Sometimes referred to as intended learning outcomes, student learning
outcome (SLO) or outcome statements. They are clear, brief statements used to
describe to a specific, measurable action or task that helps achieve the target
(goal).
Outcomes - the learning results – the end results -- the knowledge, skills,
attitudes and habits of mind that students have or have not taken with them as a
result of the students’ experience in the course(s) or program.
12
Checklist for Evaluating Written
Objectives












uses action verbs that specify definite, observable behaviors.
uses simple language.
describes student rather than teacher behaviors.
describes a learning outcome rather than a learning process.
focuses on end-of-instruction behavior rather than subject matter
coverage.
indicates a single outcome per objective.
can be assessed by one or more indicators (methods).
is clearly linked to a goal.
is realistic and attainable.
is not simple when complexity is needed.
is clear to people outside the discipline.
is validated by departmental colleagues.
Source: Ball State University
13
EXERCISE

To develop the students’ ability to
effectively express themselves orally and
in writing.

What are the learning objectives?
14
Steps to Articulating Major/Program Goals
Consensus
Research
Collaboration
Reflection
15
Identify Existing Major/Program Goals
& Objectives
Goals/objectives created for past accreditations
 Goals/objectives emerging from departmental retreats
 Goals/objectives emerging from budget requests
 Goals/objectives established by a disciplinary society
 Goals/objectives established with the help of an industry
advisory group
 Goals/objectives from past grant proposals
 Goals/objectives generated from curriculum review
committees

(Source: Walvoord, 2004)
16
Review Existing Goals/Objectives
Do they still make sense?
 Are they still relevant today?
 Are they in-line with college and
department goals?
 Are they effectively communicated?
 Use the statement, “When students
complete our program, they should be
able to …..” to help guide the
discussion

17
Other Resources for Identifying
Major/Program Goals & Objectives
 Standards
espoused by professional organizations
and accreditation agencies
 Course syllabi (ultimately, the course goals will
make up the major/program goals)
 Mission statements
 Strategic planning discussions
 Capstone experiences
 Existing course assignments or assessments
 Survey or interview of prospective employers
 Admission criteria for academic programs your
students pursue after program completion
18
Strategy Workshop
Collaborating to Develop
Program/Major Learning Goals
Brainstorm and
Write
Throw
everything on
giant notepads.
Group by kind.
No debate.
Vote with
stickers. Five
stickers per
faculty
member.
Choose highest
vote getters.
Revise language
as needed.
19
If you can’t get together…

Faculty input
◦ Ask faculty, including part-time faculty, to
anonymously submit a certain number of
educational learning goals for the major/program
(key strategy recommended by Nichols and Nichols 2005).
◦ In many instances the outcomes identified by
faculty will be concerning their individual courses
rather than the program overall. In some cases, it
may be necessary to identify similar outcomes
put forward (representing several courses) and to
generalize to the program level based on the
faculty input (Nichols and Nichols 2005).
20
Another Strategy for Building Consensus
Using the aforementioned strategies, create a list of all
possible learning goals for a major/program.
2. Distribute the list to faculty members, and ask each to
check off those goals that s/he thinks should be the
key goals for the major/program.
3. Collect the lists, tally the checkmarks, and share the
results with the faculty.
4. Strike those goals with no votes (a group may also
agree to strike those goals with just one or two votes,
too).
1.
21
Another Strategy for Building Consensus
5. Sometimes a few goals will emerge as the top
vote-getters, and the group will agree to focus
on them, ending the process.
6. If consensus cannot be reached after the first
round, redistribute the (possibly abbreviated)
list with the initial results noted, and ask the
faculty to vote again.
7. Periodically rotate and assess 3-5 key learning
outcomes for which faculty consensus
indicates importance.
22
Assessment Council
Membership










Nancy Dubetz (ECCE) nancy.dubetz@lehman.cuny.edu
*Robert Farrell (Lib) robert.farrell@lehman.cuny.edu
Marisol Jimenez (ISSP) marisol.jimenez@lehman.cuny.edu
Carl Mazza (SWK) carl.mazza@lehman.cuny.edu
Vincent Prohaska (Psych)
vincent.prohaska@lehman.cuny.edu
Lynn Rosenberg (SLHS) lynn.rosenberg@lehman.cuny.edu
Robyn Spencer (History) robyn.spencer@lehman.cuny.edu
Minda Tessler (Psych) minda.tessler@lehman.cuny.edu
Janette Tilley (Mus) janette.tilley@lehman.cuny.edu
Esther Wilder (Soc) esther.wilder@lehman.cuny.edu
*Committee Chair
Administrative Advisor – Assessment Coordinator
• Ray Galinski - raymond.galinski@lehman.cuny.edu
23